On National Socialism And World Relations.Speech Delivered in the German Reichstag on January 30th 1937
by Adolf Hitler, Führer and Chancellor

Note: This Appendix is missing from our copy of Dr.
Laurie's book and has been added here by The Scriptorium to make up the lack.
Source: The text of this speech is incompletely excerpted on various
Internet sites from a translation published by M. Müller & Sohn, Berlin;
the missing sections have been translated and added here by The Scriptorium on
the basis of a comparison with the German-language original, found here.

This session of the Reichstag takes place on a date which is full of significance
for the German people. Four years have passed since the beginning of that great
internal revolution which in the meantime has been giving a new aspect to
German life. This is the period of four years which I asked the German people to
grant me for the purpose of putting my work to the test and submitting it to their
judgement. Hence at the present moment nothing could be more opportune than
for me to render you an account of all the successes that have been achieved and
the progress that has been made during these four years, for the welfare of the
German people. But within the limits of the short statement I have to make it
would be entirely impossible to enumerate all the remarkable results that have
been reached during a time which may be looked upon as probably the most
astounding epoch in the life of our people. That task belongs rather to the press
and the propaganda. Moreover, during the course of the present year there will be
an Exposition here in Berlin which is being organized for the purpose of giving a
more comprehensive and detailed picture of the works that have been completed,
the results that have been obtained and the projects on which work has been
begun, all of which can be explained better in this way than I could do it within
the limits of an address that is to last for two hours. Therefore I shall utilize the
opportunity afforded me by this historic meeting of the Reichstag to cast a glance
back over the past four years and call attention to some of the new knowledge
that we have gained, some of the experiences which we have been through, and
the consequences that have resulted therefrom - in so far as these have a general
validity. It is important that we should understand them clearly, not only for our
own sake but also for that of the generations to come.

Having done this, I shall pass on to explain our attitude towards those problems
and tasks whose importance for us and for the world around us must be
appreciated before it will be possible to live in better relations with one another.
Finally I should like to describe as briefly as possible the projects which I have
before my mind for our work in the near future and indeed in the distant future
also.

At the time when I used to go here and there throughout the country, simply as a
public speaker, people from the bourgeois classes used to ask me why we
believed that a revolution would be necessary, instead of working within the
framework of the established political order and with the collaboration of the
parties already in existence, for the purpose of improving those conditions which
we considered unsound and injurious. Why must we have a new party, and
especially why a new revolution?

The answer which I then gave may be stated under the following headings:

1. The elements of confusion and dissolution which are making
themselves felt
in German life, in the concept of life itself and the will to national
self-preservation, cannot be eradicated by a mere change of government. More
than enough of those changes have already taken place without bringing about
any essential betterment of the distress that exists in Germany. All these Cabinet
reconstructions brought some positive advantage only to the actors who took part
in the play; but the results were almost always quite negative as far as the
interests of the people were concerned. As time has gone on the thought and
practical life of our people have been led astray into ways that are unnatural to
them, and injurious. One of the causes which brought about this condition of
affairs must be attributed to the fact that the structure of our State and our
methods of government were foreign to our own national character, our historical
development and our national needs.

The parliamentary-democratic system is inseparable from the other symptoms of
the time. A critical situation cannot be remedied by collaborating with the causes
of it but by a radical extermination of these causes. Hence under such conditions
the political struggle must necessarily take the form of a revolution.

2. It is out of the question to think that such a revolutionary
reconstruction could
be carried out by those who are the custodians and the more or less responsible
representatives of the old regime, or by the political organizations founded under
the old form of the Constitution. Nor would it be possible to bring this about by
collaborating with these institutions, but only by establishing a new movement
which will fight against them for the purpose of carrying through a radical
reformation in political, cultural and economic life. And this fight will have to be
undertaken even at the sacrifice of life and blood, if that should be necessary.

In this connection it is worthy of remark that when the average political party
wins a parliamentary victory no essential change takes place in the historical
course which the people are following, or in the outer aspect of public life;
whereas a genuine revolution that arises from a profound ideological insight will
always lead to a transformation which is strikingly impressive and is manifest to
the outside world.

Surely nobody will doubt the fact that during the last four years a revolution of
the most momentous character has passed like a storm over Germany. Who could
compare this new Germany with that which existed on the 30th. of January four
years ago, when I took my oath of loyalty before the venerable President of the
Reich?

I am speaking of a National Socialist Revolution; but this revolutionary process in
Germany had a particular character of its own, which may have been the reason
why the outside world and so many of our fellow-countrymen failed to
understand the profound nature of the transformation that took place. I do not
deny that this peculiar feature, which has been for us the most outstanding
characteristic of the lines along which the National Socialist Revolution took
place - a feature which we can be specially proud of - has hindered rather than
helped to make this unique historic event understood abroad and among some of
our own people. For the National Socialist Revolution was in itself a revolution in
the revolutionary tradition.

What I mean is this: Throughout thousands of years the conviction grew up and
prevailed, not so much in the German mind as in the minds of the contemporary
world, that bloodshed and the extermination of those hitherto in power - together
with the destruction of public and private institutions and property - were
essential
characteristics of every true revolution. Mankind in general has grown
accustomed to accept revolutions with all these consequences somehow or other
as if they were legal happenings. I do not mean that people endorse all this
tumultuous destruction of life and property; but they certainly accept it as the
necessary accompaniment of events which, because of this very reason, are called
revolutions.

Herein lies the difference between the National Socialist Revolution and other
revolutions, with the exception of the Fascist Revolution in Italy. The National
Socialist Revolution was almost entirely a bloodless proceeding. When the party
took over power in Germany, after overthrowing the very formidable obstacles
that had stood in its way, it did so without causing any damage whatsoever to
property. I can say with a certain amount of pride that this was the first revolution
in which not even a window-pane was broken.

Don't misunderstand me, however. If this revolution was bloodless that was not
because we were not manly enough to look at blood.

I was a soldier for more than four years in a war where more blood was shed than
ever before throughout human history. I never lost my nerve, no matter what the
situation was and no matter what sights I had to face. The same holds good for
my party colleagues. But we did not consider it as part of the programme of the
National Socialist Revolution to destroy human life or material goods, but rather
to build up a new and better life. And it is the greatest source of pride to us that
we have been able to carry through this revolution, which is certainly the greatest
revolution ever experienced in the history of our people, with a minimum of loss
and sacrifice. Only in those cases where the murderous lust of the Bolsheviks,
even after the 30th of January 1933, led them to think that by the use of brute
force they could prevent the success and realization of the National Socialist
ideal - only then did we answer violence with violence, and naturally we did it
promptly. Certain other individuals of a naturally undisciplined temperament, and
who had no political consciousness whatsoever, had to be taken into protective
custody; but, generally speaking, these individuals were given their freedom after
a short period. Beyond this there was a small number who took part in politics
only for the purpose of establishing an alibi for their criminal activities, which
were proved by the numerous sentences to prison and penal servitude that had
been passed upon them previously. We prevented such individuals from pursuing
their destructive careers, inasmuch as we set them to do some useful work,
probably for the first time in their lives.

I do not know if there ever has been a resolution which was of such a profound
character as the National Socialist Revolution and which at the same time
allowed innumerable persons who had been prominent in political circles under
the former regime to follow their respective callings in private life peacefully and
without causing them any worry. Not only that, but even many among our
bitterest enemies, some of whom had occupied the highest positions in the
government, were allowed to enjoy their regular emoluments and pensions.

That is what we did. But this policy did not always help our reputation abroad.
Just a few months ago we had an experience with some very honourable British
world-citizens who considered themselves obliged to address a protest to me
because I had some criminal protégés of the Moscow regime
interned in a
German concentration camp. Perhaps it is because I am not very well informed on
current affairs that I have not heard whether those honourable gentlemen have
ever expressed their indignation at the various acts of sanguinary violence which
these Moscow criminals committed in Germany, or whether they ever expressed
themselves against the slogan: "Strike down and kill the Fascist wherever you
meet him", or whether, for example, they have taken the occasion of recent
happenings in Spain to express their indignation against slaughtering and
violating and burning to death thousands upon thousands of men, women and
children. If the revolution in Germany had taken place according to the
democratic model in Spain these strange apostles of non-intervention abroad
would probably find that there was nothing which they need to worry about.
People closely acquainted with the state of affairs in Spain have assured us that if
we place the number of persons who have been slaughtered in this bestial way at
170,000, the figure will probably be too low rather than too high. Measured by
the achievements of the noble democratic revolutionaries in Spain, the quota of
human beings allotted for slaughter to the National Socialist Revolution would
have been about 400,000 or 500,000; because our population is about three times
larger than that of Spain. That we did not carry out this mass-slaughter is
apparently looked on as a piece of negligence on our part. We see that the
democratic world-citizens are by no means gracious in their criticism of this
leniency.

We certainly had the power in our hands to do what has been done in Spain. And
probably we had better nerves than the murderer who steals upon his victim
unawares, shunning the open fight, and who is capable only of murdering
defenceless hostages. We have been soldiers and we never flinched in the
face of battle throughout that most gruesome war of all times. Our hearts and, I
may also add, our sound common sense saved us from committing any acts like
those which have been done in Spain.

Taking it all in all, fewer lives were sacrificed in the National Socialist
Revolution than the number of National Socialist followers who were murdered
in Germany by our Bolshevik opponents in the year 1932 alone, when there was
no revolution.

This absence of bloodshed and destruction was made possible solely because we
had adopted a principle which not only guided our conduct in the past but which
we shall also never forget in the future. This principle was that the purpose of a
revolution, or of any general change in the condition of public affairs, cannot be
to produce chaos but only to replace what is bad by substituting something better.
In such cases, however, something better must be ready at hand. On the 30th of
January four years ago, when the venerable President of the Reich sent for me and
entrusted me with the task of forming a new Cabinet, we had already come
through a strenuous struggle in our efforts to obtain supreme political control
over the State. All the means employed in carrying on that struggle were strictly
within the law as it then stood and the protagonists in the fight were the National
Socialists. Before the new State could be actually established and promulgated,
the idea of it and the model for its organisation had already existed within the
framework of our party. All the fundamental principles on which the new Reich
was to be constructed were the principles and ideas already embodied in the
National Socialist Party.

As a result of the constitutional struggle to win over our German
fellow-countrymen to our side the party had established its predominance in the
Reichstag and for a whole year before it actually assumed power it already had
the right to demand this power for itself, even according to the principles of the
parliamentary-democratic system. But it was essential for the National Socialist
Revolution that this party should put forward demands which of themselves
would involve a real revolutionary change in the principles and institutions of
government hitherto in force.

When certain individuals who were blind to the actual state of affairs thought that
they could refuse to submit to the practical application of the principles of the
movement which had been entrusted with the government of the Reich, then, but
not until then, the party used an iron hand to make these illegal disturbers of the
peace bend their stubborn necks before the laws of the new National Socialist
Reich and Government.

With this act the National Socialist Revolution came to an end. For as soon as the
party had taken over power, and this new condition of affairs was consolidated, I
looked upon it as a matter of course that the Revolution should be transformed
into an evolution.

The new development which now set in, however, meant that there had to be a
new orientation not merely of our ideas but also in regard to the practical policy
which we had to carry out. Even today certain individuals who have fallen in the
march of events refuse to adapt themselves to this change. They cannot
understand it because it is beyond their mental horizon or outside the sphere of
their egotistic interests. Our National Socialist teaching has undoubtedly a
revolutionizing effect in many spheres of life and has interfered and acted under
the revolutionary impulse.

The main plank in the National Socialist programme is to abolish the liberalistic
concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute
therefore the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond
of its common blood. A very simple statement; but it involves a principle that has
tremendous consequences.

This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are
being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and
most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the
blood which God has given it.

And thus it happens that for the first time it is now possible for men to use their
God-given faculties of perception and insight in the understanding of those
problems which are of more momentous importance for the preservation of
human existence than all the victories that may be won on the battlefield or the
successes that may be obtained through economic efforts. The greatest revolution
which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil
which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to
the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one
error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to
recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from
intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and
God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence
created different races, but rather to recognise the fact that it punishes those who
disregard its work of creation.

Unspeakable suffering and misery have come upon mankind because they lost
this instinct which was grounded in a profound intuition; and this loss was caused
by a wrong and lopsided education of the intellect. Among our people there are
millions and millions of persons living today for whom this law has become clear
and intelligible. What individual seers and the still unspoiled natures of our
forefathers saw by direct perception has now become a subject of scientific
research in Germany. And I can prophesy here that, just as the knowledge that the
earth moves around the sun led to a revolutionary alternation in the general
world-picture, so the blood-and-race doctrine of the National Socialist Movement
will bring about a revolutionary change in our knowledge and therewith a radical
reconstruction of the picture which human history gives us of the past and will
also change the course of that history in the future.

And this will not lead to an estrangement between the nations; but, on the
contrary, it will bring about for the first time a real understanding of one another.
At the same time, however, it will prevent the Jewish people from intruding
themselves among all the other nations as elements of internal disruption, under
the mask of honest world-citizens, and thus gaining power over these nations.

We feel convinced that the consequences of this really revolutionising vision of
truth will bring about a radical transformation in German life. For the first time in
our history, the German people have found the way to a higher unity than they
ever had before; and that is due to the compelling attraction of this inner feeling.
Innumerable prejudices have been broken down, many barriers have been
overthrown as unreasonable, evil traditions have been wiped out and antiquated
symbols shown to be meaningless. From that chaos of disunion which had been
caused by tribal, dynastic, philosophical, religious and political strife, the German
nation has arisen and has unfurled the banner of a reunion which symbolically
announces, not a political triumph, but the triumph of the racial principle. For the
past four-and-a-half years German legislation has upheld and enforced this idea.
Just as on January 30th, 1933, a state of affairs already in existence was legalized
by the fact that I was entrusted with the chancellorship, whereby the party whose
supremacy in Germany had then become unquestionable was now authorized to
take over the government of the Reich and mould the future destiny of Germany;
so this German legislation that has been in force for the past four years was only
the legal sanction which gave jurisdiction and binding force to an idea that had
already been clearly formulated and promulgated by the party.

When the German community, based on the racial blood-bond, became realised
in the German State we all felt that this would remain one of the finest moments
to be remembered during our lives. Like a blast of springtime it passed over
Germany four years ago. The fighting forces of our movement who for many
years had defended the banner of the Hooked Cross against the superior forces of
the enemy, and had carried it steadily forward for a long fourteen years, now
planted it firmly in the soil of the new Reich.

Within a few weeks the political debris and the social prejudices which had been
accumulating through a thousand years of German history were removed and
cleared away.

May we not speak of a revolution when the chaotic conditions brought about by
parliamentary democracy disappear in less than three months and a regime of
order and discipline takes their place, and a new energy springs forth from a
firmly welded unity and a comprehensive authoritative power such as Germany
never before had?

So great was the Revolution that its intellectual foundations are not even yet
understood but are superficially criticized by our contemporaries. They talk of
democracies and dictatorships; but they fail to grasp the fact that in this country a
radical transformation has taken place and has produced results which are
democratic in the highest sense of the word, if democracy has any meaning at
all.

With infallible certainty we are steering towards an order of things in which a
process of selection will become active in the political leadership of the nation, as
it exists throughout the whole of life in general. By this process of selection,
which will follow the laws of Nature and the dictates of human reason, those
among our people who show the greatest natural ability will be appointed to
positions in the political leadership of the nation. In making this selection no
consideration will be given to birth or ancestry, name or wealth, but only to the
question of whether or not the candidate has a natural vocation for those higher
positions of leadership. It was a fine principle which the great Corsican
enunciated when he said that each one of his soldiers carried a marshal's baton in
the haversack. In this country that principle will have its political counterpart. Is
there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of
Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organised that through it
each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding
his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to
his aid?

And that is no theory. In the present National Socialist Germany it is a reality that
is considered by us all as a matter of course. I myself, to whom the people have
given their trust and who have been called to be their leader, come from the
people. All the millions of German workers know that it is not a foreign dilettante
or an international revolutionary apostle who is at the head of the Reich, but a
German who has come from their own ranks.

And numerous people whose families belong to the peasantry and working
classes are now filling prominent positions in this National Socialist State. Some
of them actually hold the highest offices in the leadership of the nation, as
Cabinet Ministers, Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter. But National
Socialism always
bears in mind the interests of the people as a whole and not the interests of one
class or another.

The National Socialist Revolution has not aimed at turning a privileged class into
a class which will have no rights in the future. Its aim has been to grant equal
rights to those social strata that hitherto were denied such rights. We have not
ruined millions of citizens by degrading them to the level of enslaved workers.
Our aim has been to educate slaves to be German citizens. One thing will
certainly be quite clear to every German; and this is that revolutions as acts of
terror can only be of short duration. If revolutions are not able to produce
something new they will end up by devouring the whole of the national patrimony
which existed before them. From the assumption of power as an act of force the
beneficial work of peace must be promptly developed. But those who abolish
classes for the purpose of putting new classes in their place sow the seeds of new
revolutions. The bourgeois citizen who has the ruling power in his hands today
will become a proletarian if he is banished to Siberia tomorrow and condemned
to enforced labour there. He will then yearn for his day of deliverance, just as did
the proletarian of former times, who now thinks that his turn has come to play the
despot. Therefore the National Socialist Revolution never aimed at bringing in
one class of the German people and turning out another. One the contrary, our
objective has been to make it possible for the whole German people to work, not
only in the economic but also in the political field, and to guarantee this
possibility by organising the various classes into one national unit.

The National Socialist Movement, however, limits its sphere of internal activity
to those individuals who belong to one people and it refuses to allow the
members of a foreign race to wield an influence over our political, intellectual, or
cultural life. And we refuse to accord to the members of a foreign race any
predominant position in our national economic system.

In this folk-community, which is based on the bond of blood, and in the results
which National Socialism has obtained by making the idea of this community
understood among the public, lies the most profound reason for the marvelous
success of our Revolution.

Confronted with this new and vigorous ideal, all idols and relics of the past which
had been upheld by dynastic interests, tribal affiliations and even party interests,
now began to lose their glamour. That is why the whole party system of former
times completely collapsed in a few weeks, without giving rise to the feeling that
something had been lost. They were superseded by a better ideal. A new
movement took their place. A re-organisation of our people into a national unit
that includes all those whose labour is productive simply pushed aside the old
organisations of employers and employees. The symbolic emblems of the recent
past, which was a period of disintegration and disability, were banished,
not - as in 1918 or 1919 - through a resolution voted by a committee appointed to
invent a
new symbol for the Reich, as if the choice were to depend on the results of a prize
competition. But all these old emblems were now displaced by that flag which
symbolised the militant period of the National Socialist Movement and which
was borne by us on the day of Germany's resurgence. Since that day it has become
the consecrated symbol of this national resurgence on land and sea and in the
air.

There could be no more eloquent proof of how profoundly the German people
have understood the significance of this change and new development than the
manner in which the nation sanctioned our regime at the polls on so many
occasions during the years that followed. So, of all those who like to point again
and again to the democratic form of government as the institution which is based
on the universal will of the people, in contrast to dictatorships, nobody has a
better right to speak in the name of the people than I have.

Among the results of this phase of the German Revolution I may enumerate the
following:

1. Since that time there is only one bearer of state sovereignty, namely
the entire
German people themselves.

2. The will of this people finds its expression in the Party as the political
organisation of this people.

3. Accordingly, there is only one single legislative power.

4. There is only one executive power.

Whoever compares this with Germany prior to January 1933 will see what a great
transformation is embodied in these few short statements.

But this transformation is only a result that has followed from carrying a
fundamental axiom of the National Socialist doctrine into practical effect. This
axiom is that the only reasonable meaning and purpose of all human thought and
conduct cannot be to create or to maintain structures, organisations or functions
made by men, but only to preserve and develop the innate character of the people
itself; for Providence has given us this character as the groundwork of all our
constructive efforts. Through the successful issue of the National Socialist
Movement the people as such was placed above any organisation, construction or
function, as the sole element that is always there and will permanently abide.

The meaning and purpose which Providence had in mind when it created the
different races cannot be investigated by us, human beings, and no theory about it
can be laid down. But the meaning and purpose of human organisations and of all
human activities can be measured by asking what value they are for the
maintenance of the race or people, which is the one existing element that must
abide. The people - the race - is the primary thing. Party, State, Army, the national
economic structure, Justice etc, all these are only secondary and accidental. They
are only the means to the end and the end is the preservation of this nation. These
public institutions are right and useful according to the measure in which their
energies are directed towards this task. If they are incapable of fulfilling it, then
their existence is harmful and they must either be reformed or removed and
replaced by something better.

It is absolutely necessary that this principle should be practically recognised; for
that is the only way in which men can be saved from becoming the victims of a
devitalized set of dogmas in a matter where dogmas are entirely out of place, and
from drawing dogmatic conclusions from the consideration of ways and means,
when the final purpose itself is the only valid dogma.

All of you, gentlemen and members of the German Reichstag, understand the
meaning of what I have just said. But on this occasion I am speaking to the whole
German people and therefore I should like to bring forward a few examples
which show how important these principles were proved to be when they were
put into practice.

There are many people for whom this is the only way of explaining why we talk
of a Nationalist Socialist Revolution, though no blood was shed and no property
wrecked.

For a long time our ideas of law and justice had been developing in a way that led
to a state of general confusion. This was partly due to the fact that we adopted
ideas which were foreign to our national character and also partly because the
German mind itself did not have any clear notion of what public justice meant.
This confusion was evidenced more strikingly by the lack of inner clarity as to the
function of law and justice.

There are two extreme poles which are characteristic of this mental lack:

1. The opinion that the law as such is its own justification and hence
cannot be
made the subject of any critical analysis as to its utility, either in regard to its
general principles or its relation to particular problems. According to this notion,
the law would remain even though the world should disappear.

2. The opinion that it is the main function of law to protect and
safeguard the life and property of the individual.

Between these two extreme poles the idea of defending the larger interests of the
community was introduced very timidly and under the cloak of an appeal to
reasons of state.

In contradistinction to all this, the National Socialist Revolution has laid down a
definite and unambiguous principle on which the whole system of legislation,
jurisprudence and administration of justice must be founded.

It is the task of justice to collaborate in supporting and protecting the people as a
whole against those individuals who, because they lack a social conscience, try to
shirk the obligations to which all the members of the community are subject, or
directly act against the interests of the community itself.

In the new German legal system which will be in force from now onwards the
nation is placed above persons and property.

The principle expressed in that brief statement and everything it implies has led
to the greatest reform ever introduced in our German legal structure. The first
decisive action taken in accordance with the fundamental principle I have spoken
of was the setting up not only of one legislator but also of one executive. The
second measure is not yet ready but will be announced to the nation within a few
weeks.

In the German penal code, which has been drawn up with this wide general
perspective in view, German justice will be placed for the first time on a basis
which ensures that for all time to come its duty will be to serve in maintaining the
German race.

Although the chaos which we found before us in the various branches of public
life was very great indeed, the state of dissolution into which German economic
life had fallen was still greater. And this was the feature of the German collapse
that impressed itself most strikingly on the minds of the broad masses of the
people. The conditions that then actually existed have still remained in their
memories and in the memory of the German people as a whole. As outstanding
examples of this catastrophe we found these two phenomena:

1. More than six millions of unemployed.

2. An agricultural population that was manifestly doomed to
dissolution.

The area covered by the German agricultural farms that were on the point of
being sold up by forced auction was as large as the whole of Thuringia (more than
8,000 square miles).

In the natural course of events the falling off in production on the one side, and
the decrease in purchasing power on the other, must necessarily bring about the
disruption and annihilation of the great mass of the middle class also. How
seriously this side of the German distress was then felt might subsequently be
measured by the fact that I had to ask for the period of four years
especially for the purpose of reducing unemployment and putting a stop to the
dissolution of the German agricultural population.

I may further state that in 1933 the National Socialists did not interfere with any
activities which were being carried out by others and which at the same time
promised success. The Party was called to take over the government of the
country at a moment when the possibilities of redeeming the situation in any
other way had been exhausted and particularly when repeated attempts to
overcome the economic crisis had failed.

After four years from that date I now face the German people and you, gentlemen
and members of the Reichstag, to give an account of what has been
accomplished. On this occasion I do not think you will withhold your sanction
from what the National Socialist Government has done and you will agree that I
have fulfilled the promises I made four years ago.

It was not an easy undertaking. I am not giving away any secrets when I tell you
that at that time the so-called economic experts were convinced that the
economic crisis could not be overcome. In the face of this staggering situation
which, as I have said, appeared hopeless to the minds of the experts, I still
believed in the possibility of a German revival and particularly in the possibility
of an economic recovery. My belief was grounded on two considerations:

1. I have always had only pity for those excited people who invariably
talk of
the collapse of the nation whenever they find themselves confronted with a
difficult situation. What do they mean by a collapse? The German people were
already in existence before they made any definite appearance in history as it is
known to us. Now, leaving out entirely what their pre-historic experiences may
have been, it is certain that during the past two thousand years of history, through
which that portion of mankind which we call the German People has passed,
unspeakable miseries and catastrophes must have befallen them more than once.
Famines, wars and pestilences have overwhelmed our people and wreaked
terrible havoc among them. It must give rise to unlimited faith in the vital
resources of a nation when we recall the fact that only a few centuries ago our
German people, with a population of more than eighteen millions, were reduced
by the Thirty Years War to less than four millions. Let us also remember that this
once flourishing land was pillaged, dismembered and devastated, that its cities
were burned down, its hamlets and villages laid waste, that its fields were left
uncultivated and barren. Some ten years afterwards our people began again to
increase in number. The cities were rebuilt and began to be filled with a new life.
The fields were ploughed once more. Songs were heard along the countryside, in
concord with the rhythm of that work which brought new life and livelihood to
the people.

Let us look back over the development, or at least that part of it known to us,
through which our people have passed since those dim historic ages down to the
present time. We shall then recognise how puny is all the fuss that these weakling
footlers make who immediately begin to talk about the collapse of the economic
structure - and hence of human existence - the first moment a piece of printed
paper
loses its face value somewhere in the world. Germany and the German people
have mastered many a grave catastrophe. Of course, we must admit that the right
men were always needed to formulate the necessary measures and enforce them
without paying any attention to those negative persons who always think that they
know more than others. A bevy of parliamentarian weaklings are certainly not the
kind of men to lead a nation out of the slough of distress and despair. I firmly
believed and was solemnly convinced that the economic catastrophe would be
mastered in Germany as soon as the people could be got to believe in their own
immortality as a people and as soon as they realised that the aim and purpose of
all economic effort is to save and maintain the life of the nation.

2. I was not an economist, which means that I have never been a theorist
during
my whole life.

But unfortunately I have observed that the worst theorists are always busy in
those quarters where theory has no place at all and where practical life counts for
everything. It goes without saying that in the economic sphere and with the
passing of time experience has given rise to the employment of certain definite
principles and also definite methods of work which have been proved to be
productive of good results. But all methods and principles are subject to the time
element. To make hard-and-fast dogmas out of practical methods would deprive
the human faculties and working power of that elasticity which alone enables
them to face changing demands by changing the means of meeting them
accordingly and thus mastering them. There were many persons among us who
busied themselves, with that perseverance which is characteristic of the Germans,
in an effort to formulate dogmas from economic methods and then raise that
dogmatic system to a branch of our university curriculum, under the title of
national economy. According to the pronouncements issued by these national
economists, Germany was irrevocably lost. It is a characteristic of all dogmatists
that they vigorously reject any new dogma. In other words, they criticise any new
piece of knowledge that may be put forward and reject it as mere theory. For the
last eighteen years we have been witnessing a rare spectacle. Our economic
dogmatists have been proved wrong in almost every branch of practical life and
yet they repudiate those who have actually overcome the economic crisis, as
propagators of false theories and damn them accordingly.

You all know the story of the doctor who told a patient that he could live only for
another six months. Ten years afterwards the patient met the physician; but the
only surprise which the latter expressed at the recovery of the patient was to state
that the treatment which the second doctor gave the patient was entirely
wrong.

The German economic policy which National Socialism introduced in 1933 is
based on some fundamental considerations. In the relations between economics
and the people, the people alone is the only unchangeable element. Economic
activity in itself is no dogma and never can be such.

There is no economic theory or opinion which can claim to be considered as
sacrosanct. The will to place the economic system at the service of the people,
and capital at the service of economics, is the only thing that is of decisive
importance here.

We know that National Socialism vigorously combats the opinion which holds
that the economic structure exists for the benefit of capital and that the people are
to be looked upon as subject to the economic system. We were therefore
determined from the very beginning to exterminate the false notion that the
economic system could exist and operate entirely freely and entirely outside of
any control or supervision on the part of the State. Today there can no longer be
such a thing as an independent economic system. That is to say, the economic
system can no longer be left to itself exclusively. And this is so, not only because
it is unallowable from the political point of view but also because, in the purely
economic sphere itself, the consequences would be disastrous.

It is out of the question that millions of individuals should be allowed to work just
as they like and merely to meet their own needs; but it is just as impossible to
allow the entire system of economics to function according to the notions held
exclusively in economic circles and thus made to serve egotistic interests. Then
there is the further consideration that these economic circles are not in a position
to bear the responsibility for their own failures. In its modern phase of the
development, the economic system concentrates enormous masses of workers in
certain special branches and in definite local areas. New inventions or a slump in
the market may destroy whole branches of industry at one blow.

The industrialist may close his factory gates. He may even try to find a new field
for his personal activities. In most cases he will not be ruined so easily. Moreover,
the industrialists who have to suffer in such contingencies are only a small
number of individuals. But on the other side there are hundreds of thousands of
workers, with their wives and children. Who is to defend their interests and care
for them? The whole community of the people! Indeed, it is its duty to do so.
Therefore the whole community cannot be made to bear the burden of economic
disasters without according it the right of influencing and controlling economic
life and thus avoiding catastrophes.

In the years 1932/33, when the German economic system seemed definitely
ruined, I recognized even more clearly than ever before that the salvation of our
people was not a financial problem. It was exclusively a problem of how
industrial labour could best be employed on the one side and, on the other, how
our agricultural resources could be utilized.

This is first and foremost a problem of organization. Phrases, such as the freedom
of the economic system, for example, are no help. What we have to do is use all
available means at hand to make production possible and open up fields of
activity for our working energies. If this can be successfully done by the
economic leaders themselves, that is to say by the industrialists, then we are
content.

But if they fail, the folk-community, which in this case means the State, is
obliged to step in for the purpose of seeing that the working energies of the nation
are
employed in such a way that what they produce will be of use to the nation, and
the State will have to devise the necessary measures to assure this. In this respect
the State may do everything; but one thing it cannot do - and this was the actual
state of affairs we had to face - is to allow 12,000 million working hours to be
lost year after year.

For the folk-community does not exist on the fictitious value of money but on the
results of productive labor, which is what gives money its value.

This production, and not a bank or gold reserve, is the first cover for a currency.
And if I increase production I increase the real income of my fellow-citizens. And
if I reduce production I reduce that income, no matter what wages are paid
out.

Members of the Reichstag: Within the past four years we have increased German
production to an extraordinary degree in all branches. And the whole German
nation benefits by this increase. For if there is a demand today for very many
million tons of coal more than formerly, this is not for the purpose of
superheating the houses of a few millionaires to a couple of thousand degrees, but
rather because millions of our German countrymen are thus enabled to purchase
more coal for themselves with their increased income.

By giving employment to millions of German workers who had hitherto been idle,
the National Socialist Revolution has brought about such a gigantic increase in
German production. That rise in our total national income guarantees the market
value of the goods produced. And only in such cases where we could not increase
this production, owing to certain conditions that were beyond our control, there
have been shortages from time to time; but these bear no proportion whatsoever
to the general success of the National Socialist struggle.

The four-year plan is the most striking manifestation of the systematic way in
which our economic life is being conducted. In particular this plan will provide
permanent employment in the internal circulation of our economic life for those
masses of German labour that are now being released from the armament
industry.

One sign of the gigantic economic development which has taken place is that in
many industries today it is quite difficult to find sufficient skilled workmen. I am
thankful that this is so; because it will help to place the importance of the worker
as a man and as a working force in its proper light; and also because in doing
so - though there are other motives also - we have a chance of making the
activities
of the party and its unions better understood and thus securing stronger and more
willing support.

Seeing that we insist on the national importance of the function which our
economic system fulfils, it naturally follows that the former disunion between
employer and employee can no longer exist. But the new State will not and does
not wish to assume the role of entrepreneur. It will regulate the working strength
of the nation only in so far as such regulation is necessary for the common good.
And it will supervise conditions and methods of working only in so far as this is
in the interests of all those engaged in work. Under no circumstances will the
State attempt to bureaucratize economic life. The economic effects that follow
from every real and practical initiative benefit the people as a whole. At the
present moment an inventor or an economic organiser is of inestimable value to
the folk community. For the future the first task of National Socialist education
will be to make clear to all our fellow-citizens how their reciprocal worth must be
appreciated. We must point out to the one side how there can be no substitute for
the German worker and we must teach the German worker how indispensable are
the inventor and the genuine business leader. It is quite clear that under the aegis
of such an outlook on economic life, strikes and lock-outs can no longer be
tolerated. The National Socialists State repudiates the right of economic coercion.
Above all contracting parties stand the economic interests of the nation, which
are the interests of the people.

The practical results of this economic policy of ours are already known to you.
Throughout the whole nation there is a tremendous urge towards productive
activity. Enormous works are arising everywhere for the expansion of industry
and traffic. While in other countries strikes or lock-outs shatter the stability of
national production, our millions of productive workers obey the highest of all
laws that we have in this world, namely the law of common sense.

Within these four years which have passed we have succeeded in bringing about
the economic redemption of our people; but we realise at the same time that the
results of this economic work in town and city must be safeguarded. The first
danger that threatens us here is in the sphere of cultural creativeness. And that
danger comes from those who are themselves active in that sphere. For our
fellow-countrymen who are engaged in artistic and cultural productivity today, or
are acting as custodians and trustees of cultural works, have not the necessary
intuitive faculties to value and appreciate the ideal products of human genius in
this sphere.

The National Socialist Movement has laid down the directive lines along which
the State must conduct the education of the people. This education does not begin
at a certain year and end at another. The development of the human being makes
it necessary to take the child from the control of that small cell of social life
which is the family and entrust his further training to the community itself.

The National Socialist Revolution has clearly outlined the duties which this social
education must fulfil and, above all, it has made this education independent of the
question of age. In other words, the education of the individual can never end.
Therefore it is the duty of the folk-community to see that this education and
higher training must always be along lines that help the community to fulfil its
own task, which is the maintenance of the race and nation.

For that reason we must insist that all organs of education which may be useful
for the instruction and training of the people have to fulfil their duty towards the
community. Such organs or organisations are: Education of the Youth, Young
Peoples Organisation, Hitler Youth, Labour Front, Party and Army - all these are
institutions for the education and higher training of our people. The book press
and the newspaper press, lectures and art, the theatre and the cinema, they are all
organs of popular education.

What the National Socialist Revolution has accomplished in this sphere is
astounding. Think only of the following:

The whole body of our German education, including the press, the theatre, the
cinema and literature, is being controlled and shaped today by men and women of
our own race. Some time ago one often heard it said that if Jewry were expelled
from these institutions they would collapse or become deserted. And now what
has happened? In all those branches cultural and artistic activities are flourishing.
Our films are better than ever before and our theatrical productions today in our
leading theatres stand supreme and alone in comparison with the rest of the
world. Our press has become a powerful instrument to help our people in bringing
their innate faculties to self-expression and assertion, and by so doing it
strengthens the nation. German science is active and is producing results which
will one day bear testimony to the creative and constructive will of this
epoch.

It is very remarkable how the German people have become immune from those
destructive tendencies under which another world is suffering. Many of our
organisations which were not understood at all a few years ago are now accepted
as a matter of course: the Young Folk, the Hitler Youth, BDM., Women's
Association,
Labour Service, SA, SS, NSKK, but above all the Labour Front in its magnificent
departments - they are all building stones in that proud edifice which we call The
Third Reich.

This consolidation of the internal life of our German nation also establishes a
united front towards the outside world. I believe that it is here that the National
Socialist Revival has produced the most marvellous results.

Four years ago, when I was entrusted with the Chancellorship and therewith the
leadership of the nation, I took upon myself the bitter duty of restoring the honour
of a nation which for fifteen years had been forced to live as a pariah among the
other nations of the world. The internal order which we created among the
German people offered the conditions necessary to reorganise the army and also
made it possible for me to throw off those shackles which we felt to be the
deepest disgrace ever branded on a people. Today I shall bring this whole matter
to a close by making the following few declarations:

First: The restoration of Germany's equality of rights was an event that concerned
Germany alone. It was not the occasion of taking anything from anybody or
causing any suffering to anybody.

Second: I now state here that, in accordance with the restoration of equality of
rights, I shall divest the German Railways and the Reichsbank of the forms under
which they have hitherto functioned and shall place them absolutely under the
sovereign control of the Government of the German Reich.

Third: I hereby declare that the section of the Versailles Treaty which deprived
our nation of the rights that it shared on an equal footing with other nations and
degraded it to the level of an inferior people found its natural liquidation in virtue
of the restoration of equality of status.

Fourth: Above all, I solemnly withdraw the German signature from that
declaration which was extracted under duress from a weak government, acting
against its better judgement, namely the declaration that Germany was
responsible for the war.

Members of the German Reichstag: The re-vindication of the honour of the
German people, which was expressed outwardly in the restoration of universal
military service, the creation of a new air force, the reconstruction of a German
navy and the reoccupation of the Rhineland by our troops, was the boldest task
that I ever had to face and the most difficult to accomplish.

Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was
once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for
the restoration of our honour and rights as a nation.

I regret to say that it was not possible to carry through all the necessary measures
by way of negotiation. But at the same time it must be remembered that the
honour of a people cannot be bartered away; it can only be taken away. And if it
cannot be bartered away it cannot be restored through barter; it must simply be
taken back.

That I carried out the measures which were necessary for this purpose without
consulting our former enemies in each case, and even without informing them,
was due to my conviction that the way in which I chose to act would make it
easier for the other side to accept our decisions, for they would have had to accept
them in any case. I should like to add here that, now that all this has been
accomplished, the so-called period of surprises has come to an end.

As a State which is now on an equal juridical footing with all the other States,
Germany is more conscious than ever that she has a European task before here,
which is to collaborate loyally in getting rid of those problems that are the cause
of anxiety to ourselves and also to the other nations.

If I may state my views on those general questions that are of actual importance
today, the most effective way of doing so will be to refer to the statements that
were recently made by Mr. Eden in the British House of Commons. For those
statements also imply the essentials of what must be said regarding Germany's
relations with France. At this point I should like to express my sincere thanks for
the opportunity which has been given me by the outspoken and noteworthy
declarations made by the British Foreign Secretary.

I think I have read those statements carefully and have understood them correctly.
Of course, I do not want to get lost among the details, and so I should like to
single out the leading points in Mr. Eden's speech, so as to clarify or answer them
from my side.

In doing this, I shall first try to correct what seems to me to be a most regrettable
error. This error lay in assuming that somehow or other Germany wishes to
isolate herself and to allow the events which happen in the rest of the world to
pass by without participating in them, or that she does not wish to take any
account whatsoever of the general necessities of the time.

What are the grounds for the assumption that Germany wants to pursue a policy
of isolation? If this conjecture of a German policy of isolation should be a
conclusion drawn on the basis of assumed German intentions, then I would like to clarify here
that
I do not believe that any State could ever be deliberately disinterested in the
events happening in the rest of the world, especially when this world is as small as
the Europe of today. I believe that if a State truly needs to resort to such an
attitude, then the most that can be said is that
it has been forced to do so under the coercion of a foreign will imposed upon it.
Now, in the first place, I should like to assure Mr. Eden that we Germans do not
in the least want to be isolated and that we do not at all feel ourselves
isolated.

During recent years Germany has entered into quite a number of political
agreements with other States. She has resumed former agreements and improved
them. And I may say that she has established close friendly relations with a
number of States. Our relations with most of the European States are normal from
our standpoint and we are on terms of close friendship with quite a number.
Among all those diplomatic connections I would give a special place in the
foreground to those excellent relations which we have with those States that were
liberated from sufferings similar to those we had to endure and have consequently
arrived at similar decisions.

Through a number of treaties which we have made, we have relieved many
strained relations and thereby made a substantial contribution towards an
improvement in European conditions. I need remind you only of our agreement
with Poland, which has turned out advantageous for both countries, our
agreement with Austria, and the excellent and close relations which we have
established with Italy. Further, I may refer to our friendly relations with Hungary,
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Spain etc. Finally, I may mention our
cordial relations with a whole series of nations outside of Europe.

The agreement which Germany has made with Japan for combatting the
movement directed by the Comintern is a vital proof of how little the German
Government thinks of isolating itself and how little we feel ourselves actually
isolated. Furthermore, I have on several occasions declared that it is our wish
and hope to arrive at good cordial relations with all our neighbours.

Germany has steadily given its assurance, and I solemnly repeat this assurance
here, that between ourselves and France, for example, there are no grounds for
quarrel that are humanly thinkable. Furthermore, the German Government has
assured Belgium and Holland that it is ready to recognise and guarantee these
States as neutral regions in perpetuity.

In view of the declarations which we have made in the past and in view of the
existing state of affairs, I cannot quite clearly see why Germany should consider
herself isolated or why we should pursue a policy of isolation. From the economic
standpoint there are no grounds for asserting that Germany is withdrawing from
international cooperation. The contrary is the truth. On looking over the speeches
which several statesmen have made within the last few months, I find that they
might easily give rise to the impression that the whole world is waiting to shower
economic favours on Germany but that we, who are represented as obstinately
clinging to a policy of isolation, do not wish to partake of those favours. To place
this whole matter in its true light, I should like to call attention to the following
bare facts:

1. For many years the German people have been trying to make better
commercial treaties with their neighbours and thus to bring about a more active
exchange of goods. And these efforts have not been in vain; for, as a matter of
fact, German foreign trade has increased since 1932, both in volume and in value.
This is the clearest refutation of the assertion that Germany is pursuing a policy of
economic isolation.

2. I do not believe, however, that there can be a lasting economic collaboration
among the nations on any other basis than that of a mutual exchange of
commercial wares and industrial products. Credit manipulation may perhaps have
a temporary effect, but in the long run economic international relations will be
decisively influenced by the volume of mutual exchange of goods. And here the
state of affairs at the present moment is not such that the outside world would be
able to place huge orders with us or offer prospects of an increase in the exchange
of goods even if we were to fulfil the most extraordinary conditions that they
might lay down. Matters should not be made more complicated than they already
are. If international commerce be sick, that is not due to Germany's refusal to
assist it, but is due to the fact that disorder has invaded the industrial life of the
various nations and has influenced their relations with one another. But Germany
cannot be blamed for these two things, and especially not National Socialist
Germany. When we assumed power the world economic crisis was worse than it
is today.

I fear, however, that I must interpret Mr. Eden's words as meaning that in the
carrying out of the four years plan he sees an element of refusal on Germany's
side to participate in international collaboration. Therefore I wish it to be clearly
understood that our decision to carry out this plan is unalterable. The reasons
which led to that decision were inexorable. And since then I have not been able to
discover anything whatsoever that might induce us to discontinue the four years
plan.

I shall take only one practical example: In carrying out the four years plan our
synthetic production of rubber and petrol will necessitate an annual increase in
our consumption of coal by a margin of something between 20 and 30 million
tons. This means that an extra quota of thousands of coal miners are assured of
employment for the rest of their active lives. I must really take the liberty of
asking this question: Supposing we abandon the German four years plan,
then what statesman can guarantee me some economic equivalent or other,
outside of the Reich, for these thirty million tons of coal? And that is the crux of the matter.

I want bread and work for my people. And certainly I do not wish to have it
through the operation of credit guarantees, but through solid and permanent
labour, the products of which I can either exchange for foreign goods or for
domestic goods in our internal commercial circulation.

If by some manipulation or other Germany were to throw these 20 or 30 million
tons of coal annually on the international market for the future, the result would
be that the coal exports of other countries would have to decrease. I do not know
if a British statesman, for example, could face such a contingency without
realising how serious it would be for his own nation. And yet that is the state of
affairs.

Germany has an enormous number of men who not only want to work but also to
eat. And the standard of living among our people is high. I cannot build the future
of the German nation on the assurances of a foreign statesman or on any
international help, but only on the real basis of a steady production, for which I
must find a market at home or abroad. Perhaps my scepticism in these matters
leads me to differ from the British Foreign Secretary in regard to the optimistic
tone of his statements.

I mean here that if Europe does not awaken to the danger of the Bolshevic
infection, then I fear that international commerce will not increase but decrease,
despite all the good intentions of individual statesmen. For this commerce is
based not only on the undisturbed and guaranteed stability of production in one
individual nation but also on the production of all the nations together. One of the
first things which is clear in this matter is that every Bolshevic disturbance must
necessarily lead to a more or less permanent destruction of orderly production.
Therefore my opinion about the future of Europe is, I am sorry to say, not so
optimistic as Mr. Eden's. I am the responsible leader of the German people and
must safeguard its interests in this world as well as I can. And therefore I am
bound to judge things objectively as I see them.

I should not be acquitted before the bar of our history if I neglected something -
no
matter on what grounds - which is necessary to maintain the existence of this
people. I am pleased, and we are all pleased, at every increase that takes place in
our foreign trade. But in view of the obscure political situation I shall not neglect
anything that is necessary to guarantee the existence of the German people,
although other nations may become the victims of the Bolshevic infection. And I
must also repudiate the suggestion that this view is the outcome of mere fancy.
For the following is certainly true: The British Foreign Secretary opens up
theoretical prospects of existence to us, whereas in reality what is happening is
totally different. The revolutionizing of Spain, for instance, has driven out 15,000
Germans from that country and has seriously injured our trade. Should this
revolutionizing of Spain spread to other European countries then these damages
would not be lessened but increased.

I also am a responsible statesman and I must take such possibilities into account.
Therefore it is my unalterable determination so to organize German labour that it
will guarantee the maintenance of my people. Mr. Eden may rest assured that we
shall utilize every possibility offered us of strengthening our economic relations
with other nations, but also that we shall avail ourselves of every possibility to
improve and enrich the circulation of our own internal trade.

I must ask also whether the grounds for assuming that Germany is pursuing a
policy of isolation are to be found in the fact that we have left he League of
Nations. If such be the grounds, then I would point out that the Geneva League
has never been a real League of all Peoples. A number of great nations do not belong
to it or have left it. And nobody has on this account asserted that they were
following a policy of isolation.

Mr. Eden declares that under no circumstances does the British Government wish
to see Europe torn into two halves. Unfortunately, this desire for unity has not
hitherto been declared or listened to. And now the desire is an illusion. For the
fact is that the division into two halves, not only of Europe but also of the whole
world, is an accomplished fact.

It is to be regretted that the British Government did not adopt its present attitude
at an earlier date, that under all circumstances a division of Europe must be
avoided; for then the Treaty of Versailles would not have been entered into. This
Treaty brought in the first division of Europe, namely a division of the nations
into victors on the one side and vanquished on the other, the latter nations being
outlawed. Through this division of Europe nobody suffered more than the
German people. That this division was wiped out, so far as concerns Germany, is
essentially due to the National Socialist Revolution and this brings some credit to
myself.

The second division has been brought about by the proclamation of the Bolshevic
doctrine, an integral feature of which is that they do not confine it to one nation
but try to impose it on all the nations.

Here it is not a question of a special form of national life in Russia but of the
Bolshevic demand for a world revolution. If Mr. Eden does not look at
Bolshevism as we look at it, that may have something to do with the position of
Great Britain and also with some happenings that are unknown to us. But I
believe that nobody will question the sincerity of our opinions on this matter, for
they are not based merely on abstract theory. For Mr. Eden Bolshevism is perhaps
a thing which has its seat in Moscow, but for us in Germany this Bolshevism is a
pestilence against which we have had to struggle at the cost of much bloodshed. It
is a pestilence which tried to turn our country into the same kind of desert as is
now the case in Spain; for the habit of murdering hostages began here, in the
form in which we now see it in Spain. National Socialism did not try to come to
grips with Bolshevism in Russia, but the Jewish international Bolshevics in
Moscow have tried to introduce their system into Germany and are still trying to
do so. Against this attempt we have waged a bitter struggle, not only in defence of
our own civilization but in defence of European civilization as a whole.

In January and February of the year 1933, when the last decisive struggle against
this barbarism was being fought out in Germany, had Germany been defeated in
that struggle and had the Bolshevic field of destruction and death extended over
Central Europe, then perhaps a different opinion would have arisen on the banks
of the Thames as to the nature of this terrible menace to humanity. For since it is
said that England must be defended on the frontier of the Rhine she would then
have found herself in close contact with that harmless democratic world of
Moscow, whose innocence they are always trying to impress upon us. Here I
should like to state the following once again:

The teaching of Bolshevism is that there must be a world revolution, which would
mean world-destruction. If such a doctrine were accepted and given equal rights
with other teachings in Europe, this would mean that Europe would be delivered
over to it. If other nations want to be on good terms with this peril, that does not
affect Germany's position. As far as Germany itself is concerned, let there be no
doubts on the following points:

1. We look on Bolshevism as a world peril for which there must be no
toleration.

2. We use every means in our power to keep this peril away from our
people.

3. And we are trying to make the German people immune to this peril as
far as
possible.

It is in accordance with this attitude of ours that we should avoid close contact
with the carriers of these poisonous bacilli. And that is also the reason why we do
not want to have any closer relations with them beyond the necessary political
and commercial relations; for if we went beyond these we might thereby run the
risk of closing the eyes of our people to the danger itself.

I consider Bolshevism the most malignant poison that can be given to a people.
And therefore I do not want my own people to come into contact with this
teaching. As a citizen of this nation I myself shall not do what I should have to
condemn my fellow-citizens for doing. I demand from every German workman
that he shall not have any relations with these international mischief-makers, and
he shall never see me clinking glasses or rubbing shoulders with them. Moreover,
any further treaty connections with the present Bolshevic Russia would be
completely worthless for us. It is out of the question to think that National
Socialist Germany should ever be bound to protect Bolshevism or that we, on our
side, should ever agree to accept the assistance of a Bolshevic State. For I fear
that the moment any nation should agree to accept such assistance, it would
thereby seal its own doom.

I must also say here that I do not accept the opinion which holds that in the
moment of peril the League of Nations could come to the rescue of the member
States and hold them up by the arms, as it were. No, I don't believe that. Mr. Eden
stated in his last address that deeds and not speeches are what matters. On that
point I should like to call attention to the fact that up to now the outstanding
feature of the League of Nations has been talk rather than action.

There was one exception and in that case it would probably have been better to
have been content with talk. In this one case, as might have been foreseen, action
was fruitless.

Hence, just as I have been forced by economic circumstances to depend on our
own resources principally for the maintenance of my people, so also I have been
forced in the political sphere. And we ourselves are not to blame for that.

Mr. Eden believes that in the future all States should possess only the armament
which is necessary for their defence. I do not know whether and how far Mr.
Eden has sounded Moscow on the question of carrying that excellent idea into
effect, and I do not know what assurances they have given from that quarter. I
think, however, that I ought to put forward one point in this connection. It is quite
clear that the measure of a country's defensive armament should be in proportion
to the dangers which threaten that country. Each nation has the right to judge this
for itself, and it alone has the right. If therefore Great Britain today decides for
herself on the extent of her armaments everybody in Germany will understand her
action; for we can only think of London alone as being competent to decide on
what is necessary for the protection of the British Empire. On the other hand I
should like to insist that the estimate of our protective needs, and thus of the
armament that is necessary for the defence of our people, is within our own
competency and can be decided only in Berlin.

I believe that the general recognition of these principles will not render conditions
more difficult but will help to release tension. Anyhow Germany is pleased at
having found friends in Italy and Japan who hold the same views as ourselves and
we should be still more pleased if these convictions were widespread in Europe.
Therefore nobody welcomed more cordially than we did the manifest lessening of
tension in the Mediterranean, brought about by the Anglo-Italian agreement. We
believe that this will first of all lead to an understanding which may put a stop to,
or at least limit, the catastrophe from which poor Spain is suffering. Germany has
no interests in that country except the care of those commercial relations which
Mr. Eden himself declares to be so important and useful. An attempt has been
made to connect Germany's sympathy for Nationalist Spain with some sort of
colonial claims. Germany makes no colonial claims against countries which have taken no
colonies from her. Further, Germany herself has suffered so much under the tribulations of
Bolshevism that she will not exploit the same tribulations in another nation in order to take
something from another people in their time of weakness, or to extort something from them for
the future. Our
sympathies with General Franco and his Government are in the first place of a
general nature and, secondly, they arise from a hope that the consolidation of a
real National Spain may lead to a strengthening of economic possibilities in
Europe. We are ready to do everything which in any way may contribute towards
the restoration of order in Spain.

But I think that the following considerations should not be left out of account:

During the last hundred years a number of new nations have been created in
Europe which formerly, because of their disunion and weakness, were of only
small economic importance and of no political importance at all. Through the
establishment of these new States new tensions have naturally arisen. True
statesmanship, however, must face realities and not shirk them. The Italian nation
and the new Italian State are realities. The German nation and the German Reich
are likewise realities. And for my own fellow citizens I should like to state
that the Polish nation and the Polish State have also become realities. Also in the
Balkans nations have reawakened and have built their own States. The people
who belong to those States want to live and they will live. The unreasonable
division of the world into nations that have and nations that have not will not
remove or solve that problem, no more than the internal social problems of the
nations can be simply solved through more or less clever phrases.

For thousands of years the nations asserted their vital claims by the use of power.
If in our time some other institution is to take the place of this power for the
purpose of regulating relations between the peoples, then it must take account of
natural vital claims and decide accordingly. If it is the task of the League of
Nations only to guarantee the existing state of the world and to safeguard it for all
time, then we might just as well entrust it with the task of regulating the ebb and
flow of the tides or directing the Gulf Stream into a definite course for the
future.

But the League of Nations will not be able to do the one or the other. The
continuance of its existence will in the long run depend on the extent to which it
realises that the necessary reforms which concern international relations must be
carefully considered and put into practice.

First: It was said that the natives did not want to belong to Germany.
Who asked
them if they wished to belong to some other Power? And when were these natives
ever asked if they had been contented with the Power that formerly ruled
them?

Second: It is stated that the colonies were not administered properly by
the Germans.

Now, Germany had these colonies only for a few decades. Great sacrifices were
made in building them up and they were in a process of development which
would have led to quite different results than in 1914. But anyhow the
colonies had been so developed by us that other people considered it worth while
to engage in a sanguinary struggle for the purpose of taking them from us.

Third: It is said that they are of no real value.

If that is the case then they can be of no value to other States also. And so it is
difficult to see why they deny them to us.

Moreover, Germany has never demanded colonies for military purposes, but
exclusively for economic purposes. It is obvious that in times of general
prosperity the value of certain territories may decrease, but it is just as evident
that in times of distress such value increases. Today Germany lives in a time of
difficult struggle for foodstuffs and raw materials. Sufficient imports are
conceivable only if there be a continued and lasting increase in our exports.
Therefore, as a matter of course, our demand for colonies for our densely
populated country will be put forward again and again.

In concluding my remarks on this subject I should like to note a few points
concerning the possible ways which may lead to a general pacification of Europe,
which might also be extended outside Europe.

1. It is in the interests of all nations that the individual countries shall
possess
internally stable and orderly political and economic conditions. They are the most
important conditions for lasting and solid economic and political relations
between the peoples.

2. The vital interests of the different peoples must be frankly
recognised. Mutual
respect for these vital interests alone can lead to the appeasement of the essential
needs of the nations.

3. The League of Nations, to be effective, must be reformed, and must
become
an organ of the evolutionary concept, and must not remain an organ of
inactivity.

4. The relations of the people towards one another can only be regulated
and solved on a basis of mutual respect and absolute equality.

5. It is impossible to make one nation or another responsible for
armaments or
for limitation of armaments, but it is necessary to see this problem as it really
is.

6. It is impossible to maintain peace among the nations so long as an
international irresponsible clique can continue their agitation unchecked.

A few weeks ago we saw how an organised band of international war mongers
spread a mass of lies which almost succeeded in raising mistrust between two
nations and might easily have led to worse consequences than actually
followed.

I greatly regret that the British Foreign Secretary did not categorically state that
there was not one word of truth in those calumnies about Morocco which had
been spread by these international war mongers. Thanks to the loyalty of a foreign
diplomat and his Government, it was possible to clear up this extraordinary
situation immediately. Supposing another case arose in which it turned out
impossible to establish the truth so readily, what then would happen?

7. It has been proved that European problems can be solved properly
only within
certain limits. Germany is hoping to have close and friendly relations with Italy.
May we succeed in paving the way for such relations with other European
countries. The German Reich will watch over its security and honour with its
strong army. On the other hand, convinced that there can be no greater treasure
for Europe than peace, it will always be a reasonable supporter of those European
ideals of peace and will be always conscious of its responsibilities.

8. It will be profitable to European peace as a whole if mutual
consideration be
always shown for the justified feeling of national honour among those
nationalities who are forced to live as a minority within other nations.

This would lead to a decisive lessening of tension between the nations who are
forced to live side by side, and whose State frontiers are not identical with the
ethnical frontiers.

In concluding these remarks I should like to deal with the document which the
British Government addressed to the German Government on the occasion of the
occupation of the Rhineland.

I should like first to state that we believe and are convinced that the British
Government at that time did everything to avoid an increase of tension in the
European crisis, and that the document in question owes its origin entirely to the
desire to make a contribution towards disentangling the situation of those
days.

Nevertheless, it was not possible for the German Government, for reasons which
the Government of Great Britain will appreciate, to reply to those questions.

We preferred to settle some of those questions in the most natural way by the
practical building up of our relations with our neighbours; and I should like to
state that, complete German sovereignty and equality having now been restored,
Germany will never sign a treaty which is in any way incompatible with her
honour; with the honour of the nation and of the Government which represents it;
or which otherwise is incompatible with Germany's vital interests and therefore in
the long run cannot be kept.

I believe that this statement will be understood by all. Moreover, with all my
heart I hope that the intelligence and goodwill of responsible European
Governments will succeed, despite all opposition, in preserving peace for Europe.
Peace is our dearest treasure.

Whatever contributions Germany can make towards preserving it, these she will
make.

Before concluding my address today I should like to give a short sketch of the
tasks that lie ahead of us.

In the carrying out of the Four Years Plan lies our first task. It will call for
gigantic efforts but eventually it will turn out a great blessing for our people. Its
purpose is to strengthen our national economic system in all its branches. The
execution of it is guaranteed. All those great works which have been started apart
from this plan will be continued. Their purpose is to promote the health of the
nation and make life more pleasant. Building extensions will be systematically
carried out in some of our large cities, as an externalization of the spirit that
actuates this great epoch of the resurrection of our people. The foremost task will
be the reconfiguration of Berlin into a real and true capital of the German Reich.
Therefore, just as I have previously done for the construction of our roads, I have
today appointed a General Building Inspector for Berlin, who shall be in charge
of the architectural remodelling of the Reich's capital city and of bringing order
to the chaos of Berlin's city planning to date. And that order will be based on
such spacious plans as will be
worthy of the National Socialist Movement and also of the German metropolis.
We have allotted a period of twenty years for the carrying out of this plan.

May the Almighty God grant us a time of peace in which to bring this gigantic
work to completion. Parallel therewith, the Capital of the Movement (Munich),
the Party Metropolis (Nuremberg), and the Free City of Hamburg will be
remodelled and extended on large lines.

But this work will only be the counterpart of a general cultural development
which we wish to see taking place in Germany, as the crowning achievement to
the restoration of our internal and external freedom.

And, finally, it will be one of our future tasks to give the German people a
Constitution which will be in harmony with the real life of our people, as that life
has developed politically. This Constitution will place its seal on this life for all
time to come and will be an imperishable and fundamental law for all
Germans.

As I look back on the great work that has been done during the past four years
you will understand quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness
to our Almighty God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has
blessed our labours and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles
which encompassed them on their way.

I have had three extraordinary friends in my life. In my youth it was Poverty,
which was my companion for many years. When the Great War came to a close it
was the profound anguish that I felt over the downfall of our people. This anguish
seized me and determined the path I had to follow. Since January 30th four years
ago I have made the acquaintance of the third friend - anxiety for the people and
the Reich, which have been entrusted to my guidance. From that time this anxiety
has never left my side and will probably remain a faithful companion until the
end of my days. But how could a man bear the burden of this anxiety were it not
for the faith he has in his mission and which enables him to trust that He who is
above us all sanctions my work. Destiny has often decreed that men who have a
special mission to fulfil must be lonely and deserted. But here I wish to return
thanks to Providence for having given me a group of faithful comrades who
linked their lives with mine and have ever since fought at my side for the
resurrection of our people. It is a great happiness for me that I did not have to
walk among the German people as a man alone, but that at my side there was
always a group of men whose names will endure in the history of Germany.

At this point I wish to thank my old fighting comrades who have stood by my side
throughout all these years and who give me their help today either as Cabinet
Ministers, Reichsstatthalter, Gauleiter, or in other positions under the
Party or the
State. During these days a tragedy is being enacted in Moscow which shows how
highly we ought to value that loyalty which binds the leaders of a nation to one
another. I further wish to express my sincere gratitude to all those who did not
belong to the ranks of the Party but who in these recent years have been loyal
assistants and comrades in governmental work and in other work for the nation.
All of them belong to us, even though they may not wear the external insignia of
our party community. I thank all those men and women who have assisted in
building up our party organisations and working in them with success. But above
all I have to thank the chiefs of our armed forces. They have enabled us to
provide the National Socialist State with a National Socialist defence force,
without placing any difficulties whatsoever in the way. Thus the Party and the
defence forces are now the guarantors sworn to devote themselves to the
preservation of our national existence.

But we know that all our efforts would have been in vain if we did not have the
loyal cooperation of hundreds of thousands of political leaders, innumerable
officials and countless soldiers and officers, who did their work under the
inspiration of the ideal of our national resurgence. And above all we must
acknowledge that our success could not have been attained if we were not backed
up by the united front of the whole people.

On this historic occasion I must once again thank all those millions of unknown
Germans, from every class and caste, profession and trade and from all the
farmsteads, who have given their hearts, their lives and their sacrifices, for the
new Reich. And all of us, gentlemen and members of the Reichstag, hereby join
together in tendering our thanks to the women of Germany, to the millions of
those German mothers who have given their children to the Third Reich. During
these four years every mother who has presented a child to the nation has
contributed by her pain and her joy to the happiness of the whole people. When I
think of that healthy youth which belongs to our nation, then my faith in the
future becomes a joyful certainty. And it is with a profound feeling that I realise
the significance of the simple word which Ulrich von Hutten wrote when he
picked up his pen for the last time - Deutschland.